Gulf Keystone Petroleum Live Discussion

Live Discuss Polls Ratings Documents
Page

theoryman 15 Jan 2019

Post on FP from LSE Via ADVFN Just had another look at that table on slide12/34 for the Fracture Porosities. There are 11 entries including Shaikan. 7 of them have smaller values than Shaikan’s. 1 is bigger but falls within the range that ERCE allowed which was 0.7% and two were much bigger. Two thoughts come to mind. Your own perception of normal is based on your previous experiences, so it is possible that ERCE’s experience was limited to FPs that were of the smaller variety and hence 0.4% would seem large to them. When the average for the global analysis was quoted as 4%, which average was that; the mean, the mode or the median? In other words how skewed was the data set, was say a mean of 4% caused by a relatively few big numbers swamping a large number of very small ones? So it is possible for both ERCE to report what they think is a large value for the FP in their experience AND that small number to contribute to a global average of 4% - they need not be mutually exclusive.

theoryman 15 Jan 2019

JG and the effect of the "0.2% increase in FP..." Hi, I only post on this board but I also need the help from all the other contributors on all the other boards. If you are able could you post on those others? Does anyone have a copy of what JG actually said? By a “copy” I mean a recording or a verbatim record taken at the time by a professional or one taken at a later stage from a recording that is no longer accessible. All it takes is for one word to be misreported and the whole sentence takes on a completely different meaning - if he mis-spoke then that would be a different issue.

theoryman 15 Jan 2019

Post on FP from LSE Via ADVFN Having got over the use of language that threw me a bit, I think I have seen what the original poster was hoping for but sadly I think they will be disappointed. On slide 12/34 the heading refers to Tectonic Fracture Porosities. In the chart there is a reference to Shaikan and mid case 0.4%. So is the presentation saying that it is ONLY the Tectonic contribution which is 0.4% and all the other causes of fractures will come as a bonus? When looking at a table of results always look at the column headings first and then the numbers. The column heading is very important, it’s “Fracture Porosity” which is the total of the individual fracture porosities. It’s so easy to jump from the slide heading to the number and for one’s mind to kick in… So if the tectonic mechanism is the only source of fractures then it’s value is 0.4% but if there are other sources of fractures then it less than 0.4%. The CPR also refers to Bulk Fracture Porosity and this is also the way of reporting the total fracture porosity. So until the new CPR comes along we are stuck with the 0.4% figure.

theoryman 15 Jan 2019

Post on FP from LSE Via ADVFN NOR, looks like a problem by the original poster related to the use of Upper case when it should be lower case An excellent article, thanks for the link, confirms what I already thought. There are two groups related to Porosity, Primary and Secondary depending on WHEN they are formed. Fractures are always in the Secondary group because they occur AFTER the rock is formed. However, you can also use primary and secondary to quantify the relative sizes of the causes of the fractures - in this case, lower case letters MUST be used to avoid confusion. So the primary cause of the fractures is tectonic and a secondary one is due to the collapse of caves, hence the reference to collapse in the first slide. So the fractures that result are given a label to show their origin, hence the use of Karst fracture in the presentation and they contribute to the Total Fracture Porosity, which by definition is a Secondary Porosity because they all get formed AFTER the rock is formed. So you have a primary contributor to the Secondary Porosity (Fractures which are Tectonic in origin) and a list of other secondary contributors to the Secondary Porosity ( Fractures caused for example by the collapse of voids). The voids which have not collapsed still contribute to the Secondary Porosity and are referred to in their own right and are not part of the fracture system. I take it you saw the reference to “nested”!

MikeyAdmin 15 Jan 2019

Opening Auction FTSE 100 . . . 6,855.00 (-63.18) (-0.91%) Brent Crude . . . $60.11 (-0.37) (-0.61%) GKP Closing Price . . . 37,048 @ 212p . (-0.5) (-0.02%) Opening Price, 4 @ 207p

nest_of_rampers 14 Jan 2019

Post on FP from LSE Via ADVFN Primary Fp is from earth quakes , 2nd is from HS2 dissolving limestone , - Karst & Vugs . [link]

theoryman 14 Jan 2019

Post on FP from LSE Via ADVFN NOR, I think there may be a problem with the logic in the closing section of the second post; could you run the following past anyone who might be able to check? Porosity is divided into Primary and Secondary. The Primary was created when the Rock was created. The Secondary is cause by changes to the rock after formation. The Total Porosity is the sum of the Primary Porosity and all the individual Secodary Porosities. Fracture Porosity is an example of Secondary Porosity - mechanical in origin. Vulgar Porosity, consequence of Vugs, is an another example of Secondary Porosity but it created through a different process -geochemical in origin. So why does the writer refer to Fracture Porosity as the Primary Fracture Porosity and the Vulgar Porosity as a Secondary Fracture Porosity? They are independent Secondaries IMO. The thread does start to raise some interesting issues though. Given the evidence that these individual sources of Secondary Porosities do exist, how macro are the interconnections both within each source and between sources? Narrow, short, confined to a single layer or wide, long, crossing through horizontal levels…

nest_of_rampers 14 Jan 2019

Post on FP from LSE Via ADVFN There has been a reply to the above post BubblingUp14 Jan '19 - 12:52 - 1663 of 1668 0 12 0 owenjones Posts: 24 Competent Persons or Spin DoctorsToday 10:28 gypsum. Gulf Keystone’s presentation at last year’s Finding Petroleum event in January was sandwiched between that of Hurricane and Cambridge Carbonates. Of particular interest, to GKP, were these two presentations made by the Hurricane Energy CEO, Dr Robert Trice, and Jo Garland’s colleague from Cambridge Carbonates. Indeed, Dr Trice has also included reference to the presentation on the Hurricane Energy website and has helpfully included a direct link to his presentation and the CC presentation can be found on FP. Sadly, however, Gulf Keystone Petroleum only seem to be in the habit of preventing access to such material. How can Shaikan have such a huge Radius of Investigation (Transient Drainage Radius), world-class Productivity Indexes and high Permeability with a Fracture Porosity of just 0.4%, as has been claimed by ERCE in both CPRs. My belief is that there is some form of Secondary Fracture Porosity present in Shaikan that is not represented in the CPRs. Dr Trice said that the Lancaster Field’s 4% fracture porosity was seen, by comparison with global analogues, as ‘the average’ and, in his answer to Jo Garland, of Cambridge Carbonates, confirmed that the dissolution slots followed the micro fractures and that this formed a key and important contributing element to the total Fracture Porosity. Of course, dissolution slots following the fractures within the Shaikan Sargelu were evidenced by Mr Stafford in the AAPG Fracture Presentation April 2014. Furthermore, reviewing the Cambridge Carbonates presentation it seems quite clear that Shaikan does, indeed, show the hallmarks of karst dissolution. Cambridge Carbonates described the key evidence of karst as being ‘mud losses and bit drops’ both of which are evidenced in the now removed presentation material from GKP’s website. John Gerstenlauer even made an explicit public presentational reference to a Shaikan drill bit drop of three metres and huge mud losses. A carbonate reservoir specialist in the United States has said that such drill bit drops do not occur from fractures. Karst, cavernous or large vugular dissolution would have a massive effect upon the Fracture Porosity of Shaikan. I would suggest, therefore, that the 0.4% Fracture Porosity figure, ‘adopted’ by ERCE is perhaps only for the Primary (tectonic) Fractures, which has an industry average 0.5% as stated by Cambridge Carbonates. That is why ERCE are comfortable in saying it’s the highest they’ve ever seen! Total Fracture Porosity, however, is the sum of (a) Primary Fracture Porosity, (b) Secondary Fracture Porosity resulting from dissolution, © Secondary Fracture Porosity resulting from vugs and (d) Secondary Fracture Porosity resulting from cavernous porosity or karst. The total Fracture Porosity depends upon the presence, and contribution of, those Secondary components.

MikeyAdmin 14 Jan 2019

Closing Price FTSE 100 . . . 6,855.00 (-63.18) (-0.91%) Brent Crude . . . $60.11 (-0.37) (-0.61%) GKP . . . 37,048 @ 212p . (-0.5) (-0.02%)

MikeyAdmin 14 Jan 2019

Ftse 100 FTSE 100 . . . . 6,855.00 (-63.18) (-0.91%) Brent Crude . . $59.88 (-0.60) (-0.99%) GKP . . . Spread 210----211 . . . Mid 210.5p . . (-2p) (-0.94%)

MikeyAdmin 14 Jan 2019

Ftse 100 FTSE 100 . . . . 6,894.25 (-23.93) (-0.35%) Brent Crude . .$59.88 (-0.60) (-0.99%) GKP . . . Spread 207.5-----209.5 . . Mid 208.25 . . (-3.75p) (-1.76%)

MikeyAdmin 14 Jan 2019

Opening Price Friday FTSE 100 . . . 6,918.18 (-24.69) (-0.36%) Brent Crude . . . $60.48 (-1.20) (-1.95%) GKP Closed @ 24,331 @ 212.5p . . (-3.5p) (-1.62%) Today Opening Price 464 @ 211.5p

MikeyAdmin 13 Jan 2019

Working from revenue back to production Theoryman. Yes I thanked you for providing me with the name of the website not the link, that provides average monthly Brent figures, and I will use those figures when I calculate Octobers payment figures. I now have Statista.com in my favourites [link]

MikeyAdmin 13 Jan 2019

Working from revenue back to production Please Note. September Payment [link] Gulf Keystone confirms that a gross payment of $22.4 million ($17.6 million net to GKP) 80% of 22.4m = 17.92m not 17.6m . . . (1.7857% has been deducted from GKP’s 17.92m entitlement) August payment [link] Gulf Keystone confirms that a gross payment of $27.1 million ($21.2 million net to GKP) 80% of 27.1m = 21.68m not 21.2m . . . (2.214% has been deducted from GKP’s 21.68m entitlement) July Payment [link] Gulf Keystone confirms that a gross payment of $26.6 million ($20.9 million net to GKP) 80% of 26.6m = 21.28m not 20.9m . . . (1.8327% has been deducted from GKP’s 21.28m entitlement) June Payment [link] Gulf Keystone confirms that a gross payment of $22.6 million ($17.7 million net to GKP) 80% of 22.6m = 18.08m not 17.7m . . . (2.1018% has been deducted from GKP’s 18.08m entitlement) May Payment [link] Gulf Keystone confirms that a gross payment of $27.0 million ($21.2 million net to GKP) 80% of 27m = 21.6m not 21.2m . . . (1.8519% has been deducted from GKP’s 21.6m entitlement And the same happens to each Payment before May that GKP has received and each time the percentage deducted has varied. To me the deductions whilst un-named could be the Capacity Bonus monthly deductions

theoryman 13 Jan 2019

Working from revenue back to production The production figures come from the RNS, 20 th September 2018, Half Year Results. Your original figures for Aug and Sept were both wrong. You used the wrong figure for the average price of Brent in both and the wrong number of days in August - apart from that they were spot on! I corrected both of those for you and you thanked me. I then applied the correct version of your flawed method to generate the numbers in the spreadsheet for the 52.2% column for the first 6 months. This was an attempt, which has obviously failed miserably, to show you were working from a set of assumptions that were just not true. There are three pieces of information that ought to make you stop and think about the position you are taking and repeatedly defending. As far as I can understand, you haven’t even refuted one of them, never mind all three. 1 Your own method of working out what the Av Daily Production, when applied to the first 6 months, gives figures which are too low - clearly shown in the spreadsheet. 2 Your method allows for 0% of production to be removed in-kind to pay for fees, but the latest Payment to Government for 2017, gives a value for them! 3 Your own flowchart contains a reference to one of those fees. It’s not explicitly contained in the flowchart but it is most certainly is implicit in the actual workings of the PSC. I have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no benefit to me in having any further exchanges with you.

Page